The Science of Politics

Donald Trump has now unilaterally imposed huge global tariffs, upending the world economy. But we did get a preview of Trump’s trade approach in his first term, allowing researchers to analyze the political consequences. Thiemo Fetzer finds that China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico reacted to the first term tariffs strategically, trying to hurt Trump’s constituents. Omer Solodoch finds that the first term trade war announcement immediately hurt Trump politically, reducing approval and affecting voting intentions. They both say the new trade war is bigger, with political consequences likely to grow.

Nicholas Jacobs, a Colby College professor specializing in American political institutions, and Sidney Milkis from the University of Virginia, focus on the complexities of the Trump administration's approach to the administrative state. They discuss whether Trump is truly dismantling governmental structures or redirecting their power for conservative goals. The conversation touches on the rise of 'Trumpification' within the Republican Party, ideological tensions, and the evolving dynamics of presidential power in today's polarized political landscape.

We have the parties that we said we wanted: they compete over extensive policy programs, with voters making decisions among clear issue position alternatives. But how did they get here and have they now gone too far? Katherine Krimmel finds that the American parties became extensively programmatic as they lost vestiges of clientelism and became national parties after federal growth and civil rights. But Trump may be changing the nature of the party system. And running on the issues may not be all it’s cracked up to be.

Five years after the COVID lockdowns, the performance of government and policy experts is not looking great in retrospect. Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee find that policymakers dispensed with years of pre-pandemic planning that suggested the tools used to fight COVID would not work. Experts did not sufficiently consider the costs of their preferred approaches and spoke publicly of consensus while privately admitting limited evidence. Policymakers and experts deterred alternatives and suppressed dissent, leaving us with today's increased distrust of health and political authorities. The second Trump administration is now empowering the skeptics and taking advantage of Americans’ distrust of expertise.

Courts are pausing dozens of Trump administration actions—from mass firings to agency shutdowns. But does the judiciary have a real enforcement mechanism? Will public faith in the courts mean Trump faces consequences in elections and public esteem or will that faith wilt as the judiciary is just seen as another partisan institution? Amanda Driscoll, Michael Nelson, and Jay Krehbiel find that Americans have faith in the rule of law and respond well to courts that invalidate executive action—and partisanship does not seem to interfere. It’s a potentially optimistic story about the role that courts and public opinion may play in limiting democratic backsliding. But they all see risks in practice, as dozens of judges use arcane rules to limit the president while Republicans attack judicial branch oversight.

Loren Collingwood, a researcher at the University of New Mexico specializing in Latino opinions and immigration policies, delves into the surprising support some Latinos have for Trump's immigration agenda. He discusses how many separate themselves from recent immigrants, influencing their political views. Collingwood reveals the role of money in shaping immigration policies, particularly how interest groups sway legislators. Additionally, he analyzes the evolving dynamics of Latino voting and the complexities of identity within their political engagement.

American interest groups are increasingly lining up behind the Democratic or Republican Party and trying to build coalitions within those parties rather than across them. But historically, that has not been the most effective method to bring policy change. Jesse Crosson finds that interest groups are increasingly taking positions on issues outside their areas of expertise in an effort to unite their partisan coalitions. They are facing pressure to toe the party line, but it might prevent the broader coalitions they need to build to pass legislation.

How did Americans become politically divided on culture war topics like guns, abortion, women’s role, gay rights, and environmentalism? The common story is that it took polarizers from the top: politicians and activists associated with each party moved the public to their respective sides. But Neil O’Brian finds that the culture war followed America’s racial realignment  because racial attitudes were always tied to other cultural issue views in the American public, well before they were emphasized by the parties. Once the parties divided on race, they brought culturally liberal voters to the Democrats and culturally conservative voters to the Republicans. And that combination of issue attitudes and alignments largely mirrors patterns across the democratic world.

Trump has promised to remake the federal bureaucracy in his own image and go after his political opponents and the media in his 2nd administration. But there are signals that public protest and civil society mobilization are subdued. How much do we have to fear further democratic backsliding under Trump 2? Brendan Nyhan finds expert consensus on many reasons to be concerned but also evidence that experts were too pessimistic about the likelihood of bad actions the first time.

When Kamala Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee, an outpouring of excitement among Indian Americans foretold potential gains for Democrats among Asian Americans, the fastest growing minority group. But Asian Americans neither turned out in record numbers nor moved toward Democrats. In fact, Indian Americans moved toward Trump. Janelle Wong has followed the trajectory and diversity of Asian-American voters. She does not see a realignment in the making but does see significant moves rightward and divergence across country of origin subgroups. This adds to the evidence of racial dealignment, but also the complexity of American racial categories.